A major concern in the motion picture and video production fields has been to provide for the mobility of the camera, not only laterally or horizontally along the ground, but also vertically in space as well. A number of systems have been devised to achieve this objective, each providing the cameraman with its own particular limited degree of mobility in terms of speed and range. Obviously, an equally important consideration in each case has been to maintain a high quality image which is not excessively degraded by unwanted angular or spatial motions or vibrations of the camera. That is to say, either motions in any of the three perpendicular degrees of angular deviation, or in any of the three directions of motion in space (the x and y axes of lateral motion and the z axis of vertical motion). The hand-held camera, for instance, is highly mobile, but affords an often unacceptable amount of jittering when the operator moves at anything above a slow walk.
In the simplest and earliest forms, camera transporting mechanisms involved wheeled conveyances (dollies) which could be pushed or driven along, and which were often provided with smooth rails, or the like, upon which to travel if the selected path was too bumpy. Dollies then acquired jib arms, and cranes were invented which added a degree of vertical travel. Numerous versions with more or less sophisticated suspensions, in all sizes, had been the state of the art up until the middle 1970's. At that time, the cameraman's arsenal of techniques was expanded by the invention of a stabilizer for the hand-held camera by the present applicant (U.S. Pat. No. 4,017,168) which provides a high-quality image along with an unprecedented degree of freedom for the hand-held camera. The operator can walk, run, climb stairs, ride horseback, etc. and still achieve high quality images. In addition, there have always been various forms of camera mounts on or in conventional vehicles, some of which have been stabilized, which meant that the camera could be transported within the particular limitations of each vehicle. Cameras on cars, trucks and motorcycles, have expanded the range and speed of the moving shot, and cameras on helicopters and airplanes and blimps have provided coverage from high angles above the earth. Unfortunately, each is restricted by design and prudence to its own particular area of safe and effective operation. The motorcycle cannot rise up with the camera, and the helicopter cannot work close to ground level without considerable peril.
This has left an important area of coverage almost entirely without an effective means of camera transport. The problem which has remained unsolved is mainly one of scale, and the area referred to is that in which a great deal of mankind's entertainment takes place. Directors, particularly in video, are constantly faced with the need to deploy cameras in order to shoot events that take place within huge more-or-less enclosed spaces. Everything from the Academy Awards to the Olympics, from the concert stage to the athletic stadium. Hundreds of such spectacles end up on network air time yearly in this country alone. It is relatively easy to arrange any number of ground-based or balcony-mounted camera positions, but as it is frequently difficult to move these cameras, they usually end up as static shots, zooming in and out near the telephoto end of the lens. It is obviously highly desirable to be able to move the camera in an unrestricted manner without worrying about obstacles on the ground, and without inhibiting the enjoyment of spectators on the scene. The camera should be capable of moving rapidly, even at ground level and close to the participants, without danger, and ideally should then be able to fly hundreds of feet up and away to hold completely still for any of the spectacular high-angle shots of which directors dream.
Such shots have been unobtainable heretofore. For example, consider a televised NFL football game. They employ dozens of fixed cameras high up in the stands and at positions on the ground. They also employ a camera dolly or two, which can run up and down the sidelines, and at times even a crane with perhaps a thirty foot arc to shoot down upon the players' bench and the coaches from the sidelines. This leaves approximately 99.9% of the volume of a stadium in which it is currently impossible or impractical to deploy a camera. Recent experiments with an overhead mounted camera in some stadiums have been tantalizing because the angle is spectacular, but once mounted, the camera is stuck in its spot and can only do approximately what the "press-box" cameras do if a closer shot is desired--zoom in. Since zooming is an optical magnification of the image, one loses the sense of immediacy that a closer camera would provide, not to mention the excitement of an actual move in to this close position.
In order to provide for camera mobility, prior workers in the art have mounted camera systems on rails, cables, and the like, as is evidenced by the disclosures in U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,538,910 (Miller), 2,633,054 (Black), 3,437,748 (Latady et al.), 3,935,380 (Coutta) and 4,027,329 (Coutta). Although the above systems do provide a certain degree of mobility they obviously are limited to movement along the predetermined path of travel that is established by the prearranged configuration of the track.
It also has been suggested to provide mounting structures for attaching camera systems to aircraft, such as helicopters, as is evidenced by the disclosure in U.S. Pat. No. 3,638,502 (Leavitt et al). Although cameras mounted in this fashion have a high degree of mobility, they obviously can not be employed close to ground level, such as is often desired in photographing athletic events. Moreover, these systems clearly cannot be utilized to photograph indoor events.
From the above discussion it should be apparent that existing camera support systems lack versatility, thereby inherently imposing restrictions, or limitations, in photographing many events.